The Event: (75) So I swear not by the places where the stars fall...

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: Regarding the Order and its Rationale

When God Almighty sent His Messenger, He bestowed upon him everything befitting him and purified him from everything unbecoming. He gave him Wisdom (al-Hikmah), which consists of conclusive proofs and their proper application, and Good Admonition (al-Maw'izah al-Hasanah), which comprises beneficial matters that soften hearts and illuminate chests, and Disputation (al-Jidāl) conducted in the best manner. The Prophet (PBUH) presented all this, yet they were unable to counter him with anything and still did not believe what was recited to them.

When this happens, the only recourse left for the Prophet (PBUH) is to say: "This clear exposition is not due to the obviousness of the claim itself, but rather due to the strength of the claimant's intellect and his ability to construct arguments." The claimant knows he prevails through the strength of his debate, not the clarity of his statement. Sometimes, one debater, upon being defeated, says to the other: "You know the truth is on my side, but you are overpowering me and not being fair." At that point, the opponent has no answer left except to swear by oaths from which there is no escape, affirming that he is not being obstinate and is being fair. This is because if he were to bring another proof, the first person could say: "I defeated you in this proof too, by your strength and power."

Similarly, when God Almighty gave the Prophet (PBUH) what was appropriate, they claimed he intended to favor them and that he was arguing with them about something he knew to be otherwise. Thus, nothing was left for him except to swear. Therefore, God revealed various types of oaths to him after the proofs. This is why oaths are frequent in the early parts of the revelation, especially in the last seven chapters (al-Saba' al-Awākhir).

Issue 2: Regarding the Attachment of the Letter Bā' (in bi-mawāqi')

Since God established His creation and provision, and demonstrated His greatness with conclusive proof, and yet they did not believe, He said: Nothing remains except the oath, so He swore by God: "Indeed, I am truthful."

Issue 3: What is the Meaning of His Statement, {So I swear not} (Falā uqsim), when you claim it is an oath?

There are transmitted and rational interpretations that do not contradict the transmission.

As for the transmitted interpretations:

1. The Lā (لا) is superfluous, similar to His statement {so that He may know} (li-ya'lama) in {that He may know} (Al-Hadid: 29), meaning "so that He may know."
2. It is an elongation of the Lām of emphasis (Lām al-Ta'kīd). Its fatḥah was elongated, turning it into Lā, similar to what happens in pausing.
3. The Lā is negative, and its original form, according to some views, is an oath following it, as if He said: "No! By God, the claim of the disbelievers that I swear by it is baseless."

As for the rational interpretation:

The word Lā is negative in its literal meaning, but there is a figurative construction in the speech. The meaning of Lā in negation here is like when someone says: "Do not ask me about what happened to me," indicating that what happened to him is too great to be explained, so he should not be asked. The purpose of the question would not be achieved, and the purpose of the prohibition would only be to indicate the magnitude of the event. It becomes as if he said: "A great matter has befallen me."

This is supported by the listener responding: "What happened to you?" If the listener understood the true meaning as a prohibition against asking, he would not say, "What happened to you?" It would be valid for the listener to say: "I erred by forbidding you from asking, and then I asked you." This often happens with the speaker who says, "Do not ask me," when his companion quiets down from asking, or "Do not ask me, and do not say, 'What happened to you?'" The listener cannot then say, "You forbade me from asking." All this establishes in their understanding that the intent is to magnify the event, not to prohibit.

Given this, we apply it to the oath: A similar situation exists in two ways:

1. The event being sworn by is extremely clear: One might say, "I will not swear that this is the case," because it is too obvious to be publicized or too widespread to be denied. Thus, "I will not swear" does not mean denying the oath, but rather indicating the clarity of the event.
2. The object of the oath is greater than what is typically sworn by: The speaker is affirming himself, saying, "I will not swear by this, but by a thousand oaths," or "I will not swear by the head of the prince, but by the head of the Sultan," intending the utmost certainty.

The second interpretation is supported by the fact that this phrasing (Falā uqsim) does not appear in the Qur'an when the object of the oath is God or one of His attributes; rather, it appears with created things.

The first interpretation avoids the difficulty if we hold that the object of the oath in all instances is the Lord of things, as in {By those who set the ranks in rows} (Al-Saffat: 1), meaning the Lord of those who set ranks, the Lord of the Resurrection, the Lord of the Sun, and so on. Therefore, His statement {So I swear not by the places where the stars fall} means: The matter is too clear to require an oath, and doubt cannot attach to it.

Issue 4: What are the "Places where the stars fall" (Mawāqi' al-Nujūm)?

There are several views:

1. The rising and setting points, or the settings alone, as the stars disappear there.
2. Their positions in the heavens, in their zodiacs and mansions.
3. Their positions when the devils crowd together to eavesdrop.
4. Their positions on the Day of Resurrection when the stars scatter.

As for the "places of the stars of the Qur'an," they are the hearts of His servants, His angels, His messengers, and the righteous believers, or the meanings and rulings contained within it.

Issue 5: Is there a benefit in singling out the "places where the stars fall" for the oath?

Yes, there is a magnificent benefit. We have mentioned that swearing by their places is both an oath and a proof, as we explained in Al-Dhariyāt, Al-Ṭūr, and Al-Najm, and elsewhere.

Here too, it serves as a proof. When God Almighty mentioned the creation of man from a mere drop of fluid, his death, He indicated His Power and Will by pointing to the creation of opposites within the self. Then, after mentioning a proof from within the self, He mentioned a proof from the horizons: {Have you seen what you sow?} (Al-Waqi'ah: 63), {Have you seen the water?} (Al-Waqi'ah: 68), and so on. He mentioned His power to make the seed grow and then turn it into dry chaff, and to create sweet, fresh water and turn it into bitter water—all pointing to the fact that the One capable of opposites is one who chooses (i.e., has Will).

He did not mention any celestial proofs among the internal and terrestrial proofs. Then, He mentioned the celestial proof in the context of the oath, saying, {by the places where the stars fall}, because these too are proof of Will. The fact that each star occupies a specific place in the sky and not another, while all locations are essentially equal, is evidence of an intentional, choosing Agent.

Thus, mentioning {by the places where the stars fall} is similar to His statement {We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves} (Fussilat: 53), and like {And in the earth are signs for those who are certain, And in your own selves. Will you not then see?} (Al-Dhariyāt: 20-21), and {And in the heaven is your provision and what you are promised} (Al-Dhariyāt: 22), where the three categories are mentioned.

Then He said: {And indeed, it is an oath, if you only knew, [a] great [one]}. The pronoun refers back to the oath implied by {So I swear not}, as it implies the verbal noun (the act of swearing). This is why verbal nouns that have not yet materialized as verbs can be described, such as saying: "I struck him strongly" (ḍarabtuhu qawiyyan). This involves grammatical and semantic issues.

Issue 1: What is the response to {if you only knew} (law ta'lamūn)?

Some ignorant people might say the response is what preceded it, which is incorrect in all contexts because the response to a conditional clause cannot precede it. This is because the operation of particles (ḥurūf) on their objects cannot occur before their existence. One cannot say: "Zayd, if he stands," or similar constructions with particles. The reason is that the operation of particles resembles the operation of meanings (ma'ānī). Particles distinguish between the subject, object, etc. If the operator is a meaning that has no physical manifestation, its precedence or subsequence can be perceived by the senses. One might say: "Standing, I struck Zayd," or "A severe striking, I struck him." However, particles have a physically perceptible precedence and subsequence, so it is impossible to assume their existence preceding their operation, unlike meanings.

Once this is established, the operation of the conditional particle is to remove each of the two clauses from being an independent sentence. When you say man (whoever) or anna (that), you cannot remove the first clause from being a sentence after it has already occurred as a sentence. This shows that the particle's operation is weaker than that of a meaning, as it depends on the meaning's operation, even though the meaning could be assumed to precede or follow. The operation of verbs is a semantic operation, while the operation of particles is one that mimics meaning.

Given this, consider His statement: {And she certainly desired him, and he, too, desired her, had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord} (Yusuf: 24). Some preachers say the response to law is omitted, meaning the desire did not occur, which is false based on what we mentioned. Here, it is even more certainly false because the preceding element cannot serve as the consequence for the succeeding element. If someone says: "If you knew, Zayd would be standing," this is not proper Arabic.

Once this is clear, the statement admits two possibilities:

1. The response is entirely omitted: No response was intended. Instead, the intent is to negate what law entered upon. It is as if He said: "And indeed, it is an oath that you do not know." The clarification is that law is mentioned to negate something due to the negation of something else; thus, the first must be negated. Including law with ta'lamūn informs us that their knowledge is negated, whether we know the response or not. This is like saying regarding a transitive verb: "So-and-so gives and withholds," where no object is intended; rather, the ability is affirmed. In this case, if one asks: What is the benefit of resorting to the figurative rather than the literal "Indeed, it is an oath, and you do not know"? We reply: The benefit is to emphasize the negation. When someone says, "If you knew," it is a claim on his part. If he is challenged and asked, "Why do you say we do not know?" he replies, "If you knew, you would have done such-and-such." So, when he says initially, "You do not know," he intends negation, as if he is saying: "I assert that you do not know," without reference to proof or cause.
2. There is an implied response: The implied response is: "If you knew, you would have revered it, but you did not revere it." Thus, it is known that you do not know, because if you knew, it would be revered in your eyes, but since there is no reverence, you do not know.

Issue 2: Does {if you only knew} have an object or not?

Based on the first interpretation, it has no object, similar to saying: "So-and-so gives and withholds," as if He meant: "You have no knowledge." It is also possible to say it has an object: "You have no knowledge of the greatness of the oath," in which case it has an object. The first view is more eloquent and elegant because they do not know anything at all. If they knew, the most obvious things to know would be these matters clearly demonstrated by conclusive proofs—like His statement {deaf, dumb, blind} (Al-Furqan: 44) and {like cattle; rather, they are more astray} (Al-A'raf: 179).

Under the second view (that it has an object), there are two possibilities:

1. If you had knowledge of the oath, you would have revered it.
2. If you had knowledge of its greatness, you would have revered it.

Issue 3: How does {if you only knew} relate to what precedes and follows it?

It is an inserted parenthetical statement within the discourse. The structure is: "And indeed, it is a great oath, if you knew, you would have believed." If one asks: What is the benefit of the parenthetical insertion? We reply: To emphasize cutting off the objection of the objector. When He said, {And indeed, it is an oath}, He intended to describe it as great by saying 'aẓīm (great). The disbelievers were ignorant of this, yet claimed knowledge of astronomical matters, saying: If it were so, why do we not gain knowledge or certainty? He replied: If you knew, you would have certainty.

The matter is even clearer based on what we previously established: every object God used for an oath is itself a proof of the intended meaning, presented in the form of an oath. Therefore, {And indeed, it is an oath} means, in reality, "Indeed, it is a strong proof and evidence; if you knew its way, you would confess its implication," which is Monotheism and the Power over Resurrection. This is because the evidence of the stars being confined to specific locations is extremely clear, and no proof clearer than this is required by the philosophers.

Issue 1: What is sworn upon?

There are two views:

1. The Qur'an, which they sometimes called poetry, sometimes magic, and so on.
2. Monotheism and Resurrection, which is more apparent. The statement {It is indeed a Qur'an} is the beginning of a new statement, which we will clarify.

Issue 2: What is the benefit of describing it as great in {And indeed, it is an oath}?

When He said, {So I swear not} (implying: I do not swear by this because the object of the oath is too clear), He then said: "I am not abandoning the oath by this, as if it were not an oath or not a great oath. Rather, it is a great oath, and I swear by it, or rather, by something greater than it, because of my certainty in the matter and my knowledge of its reality."

Issue 3: Oaths are often described as solemn (Mughallaẓah).

Greatness ('uẓm) is attributed to the object of the oath: "So-and-so swore by great oaths." Then, one says about it, "It is a solemn oath" because its sins are great. However, concerning God Almighty, it is described as Great ('Aẓīm), which is appropriate. This is because its meaning is that which draws near to every heart and fills the chest with awe, based on what we explained: the meaning of 'Aẓīm here is that which approaches many things and fills many chests with greatness, just as a great body approaches great things and fills many spaces with bulk. Similarly, the non-corporeal 'Aẓīm approaches many matters and fills many chests.

{Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an, [Inscribed] in a Preserved Tablet, None shall touch it except the purified. A revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.}